Legal/scotus thread

eather Cox Richardson (TDPR) liked
Asha Rangappa
@AshaRangappa_
·
3h
One of the worst things to come out of the Trump era is the apparent necessity

of having to specify the party affiliation (or appointing president) of the judge or judges

when discussing a court opinion. It’s absolutely terrible for the rule of law and I hope it stops

I would add nationality,race and religion
 
The Georgia-Florida-Alabama water war is in front of the SCOTUS today. It's one of the rare original jurisdiction cases you see the SCOTUS handle (original jurisdiction means the case didn't have to go through the lower courts and be appealed to the SCOTUS, it could be filed directly with the SCOTUS). The SCOTUS appointed a special master to hear the case that sided with Georgia and now the full court is hearing the case. This case, however decided, will not be the end of this dispute but it could be a big step in the direction of either allowing Georgia more rights to water (especially Lake Lanier) or else restricting those rights to give Florida more.

Florida's big argument is that the lack of fresh water has been detrimental to the oyster and mussel populations in Apalachicola Bay.This isn't entirely accurate as the primary thing that damaged these populations was overfishing. Georgia's best argument (and why I think they'll come out ahead) has been the degree to which they've successfully reduced water usage. Water usage has dropped in the Atlanta area in spite of significant population growth. There has also been significant improvement in agricultural water usage in Georgia.
 
striker42 said:
The Georgia-Florida-Alabama water war is in front of the SCOTUS today. It's one of the rare original jurisdiction cases you see the SCOTUS handle (original jurisdiction means the case didn't have to go through the lower courts and be appealed to the SCOTUS, it could be filed directly with the SCOTUS). The SCOTUS appointed a special master to hear the case that sided with Georgia and now the full court is hearing the case. This case, however decided, will not be the end of this dispute but it could be a big step in the direction of either allowing Georgia more rights to water (especially Lake Lanier) or else restricting those rights to give Florida more.

Florida's big argument is that the lack of fresh water has been detrimental to the oyster and mussel populations in Apalachicola Bay.This isn't entirely accurate as the primary thing that damaged these populations was overfishing. Georgia's best argument (and why I think they'll come out ahead) has been the degree to which they've successfully reduced water usage. Water usage has dropped in the Atlanta area in spite of significant population growth. There has also been significant improvement in agricultural water usage in Georgia.
Click to expand...

Oyster got hammered after the oil spill and they never have recovered. The lack of fresh water “at times” can inhibit growth for sure though. I think both had hands in the issue. We had a drought as the oyster pop was down. It’s not as much an issue as of now I think. Heck, people are farming oysters now.

They grow slow so the spat is really protected and people are careful with it if encountered
 
Tapate50 said:
Oyster got hammered after the oil spill and they never have recovered. The lack of fresh water “at times” can inhibit growth for sure though. I think both had hands in the issue. We had a drought as the oyster pop was down. It’s not as much an issue as of now I think. Heck, people are farming oysters now.

They grow slow so the spat is really protected and people are careful with it if encountered
Click to expand...

I go on vacation down there every year and have talked with a lot of the locals. Almost all of them don't like Atlanta and its water consumption but they also begrudgingly admit that the fishery there was badly mismanaged. A lot of articles you read about the case quote a guy saying that back in the day you could almost walk across the Bay without touching water as you could go from boat to boat harvesting oysters. There was just no way the number of oysters being pulled out was going to be sustainable, even if they had the perfect amounts of fresh water.

Not getting enough water likely slowed the oysters down but the industry there was doomed long before that. However, you're starting to see signs of things coming back. It's going to take a ton of time but there's some investment in new oyster beds going on down there.

As for this case, the makeup of the court doesn't favor Florida. The Atlanta area is the home to a ton of of major companies. Coke, UPS, Home Depot, Delta, Cox, NCR, Etc. It's one of the economic powerhouses of the south. While Roberts might be taking a moderate stand on a lot of major cases, he's pretty reliably conservative where it comes to business. I don't see 5 justices letting the ghosts of the oyster industry but a limit on the growth of the Atlanta area.
 
striker42 said:
I go on vacation down there every year and have talked with a lot of the locals. Almost all of them don't like Atlanta and its water consumption but they also begrudgingly admit that the fishery there was badly mismanaged. A lot of articles you read about the case quote a guy saying that back in the day you could almost walk across the Bay without touching water as you could go from boat to boat harvesting oysters. There was just no way the number of oysters being pulled out was going to be sustainable, even if they had the perfect amounts of fresh water.

Not getting enough water likely slowed the oysters down but the industry there was doomed long before that. However, you're starting to see signs of things coming back. It's going to take a ton of time but there's some investment in new oyster beds going on down there.

As for this case, the makeup of the court doesn't favor Florida. The Atlanta area is the home to a ton of of major companies. Coke, UPS, Home Depot, Delta, Cox, NCR, Etc. It's one of the economic powerhouses of the south. While Roberts might be taking a moderate stand on a lot of major cases, he's pretty reliably conservative where it comes to business. I don't see 5 justices letting the ghosts of the oyster industry but a limit on the growth of the Atlanta area.
Click to expand...

We vacation there a few times per year. It’s not far from us. I love it there.

I can vouch for the oyster men. They didn’t know any better though. They just were trying to feed families.
 
Tapate50 said:
We vacation there a few times per year. It’s not far from us. I love it there.

I can vouch for the oyster men. They didn’t know any better though. They just were trying to feed families.
Click to expand...

No doubt. It's a tough life and the only one a lot of them knew. Great area. Probably my favorite area of Florida.
 
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-cou...amed-georgia-for-destroying-bivalve-industry/

Here's a breakdown of the oral arguments. Thomas actually asked questions which isn't surprising as the court is sitting as a fact finder in this case. A role normally reserved for a judge or jury at a trial court level.

The interesting point one justice brought up was the fact that the water restrictions Florida asked for would cost metro Atlanta $100 million a year while the entire Apalachicola oyster industry was worth less than $7 million per year. If I'm on the court there's no way I put the restrictions on Georgia if those numbers are close to right. You could accomplish the same goal by requiring Georgia to pay money damages to Florida at a fraction of the economic cost of water restrictions to Georgia.
 
I read the Thomas dissent. A lot of people miss his point. The thing that really riled him up wasn't the underlying facts. He's clear that the results in PA would not be changed by SCOTUS action. What he was upset about was the idea that the case was moot.

He wants to address the powers over elections legislatures have as opposed to courts. Since election timelines are tight, it's difficult to fully appeal a case in time. Since the same problems are capable of repetition, they should not be declared moot.

He wanted the court to hear this case to set the rules for the future, not change anything that happened this election
 
There's a big case being argued in front of the SCOTUS tomorrow. Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee. This is a great example of when you should pick your battles.

The case centers on two statutes passed by Arizona in 2016. The first disqualifies any ballot cast at the wrong precinct. The second makes it a felony for anyone other than the voter, their family, their caregiver, a postal worker, or an election official to deliver an absentee ballot (this is an anti-ballot harvesting statute). The Democratic party sued alleging these law violated the Voting Rights Act because they would disproportionately affect minority voters and were passed based on racial animus.

The Democratic party lost at the trial court and on their initial appeal but won on an en banc review by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit found that the precinct requirement disproportionately affected minority voters as black and hispanic voters were significantly more likely to cast their ballots at the wrong precinct. The court also found that the anti-ballot harvesting statute was passed with racial animus.

In their decision the 9th Circuit said there is a two part test to determine this. What the test is for our purposes here is less important than noting the circuits have split on what the test is so the SCOTUS pretty much has to address it at this point.

Suffice to say the current makeup of the court is not ideal for the Democratic Party's side. The current court is very much of the mind that the Constitution gives the states the power to administer their own elections and they have not, to date, shown much consideration for the continued relevancy of the Voting Rights Act. Bringing this case when it did and on the specific statutes it did means the Democratic Party has given the SCOTUS another chance to pare down the Voting Rights Act.

Then there's the fact that these aren't particular heinous statutes compared to other practices out there. The ballot harvesting in particular is a challenge that will be hard to sustain.

In any event, we're likely to get a new test on how to determine whether voting laws pass muster under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. My guess is that it will be pretty deferential to the states.
 
striker42 said:
There's a big case being argued in front of the SCOTUS tomorrow. Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee. This is a great example of when you should pick your battles.

The case centers on two statutes passed by Arizona in 2016. The first disqualifies any ballot cast at the wrong precinct. The second makes it a felony for anyone other than the voter, their family, their caregiver, a postal worker, or an election official to deliver an absentee ballot (this is an anti-ballot harvesting statute). The Democratic party sued alleging these law violated the Voting Rights Act because they would disproportionately affect minority voters and were passed based on racial animus.

The Democratic party lost at the trial court and on their initial appeal but won on an en banc review by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit found that the precinct requirement disproportionately affected minority voters as black and hispanic voters were significantly more likely to cast their ballots at the wrong precinct. The court also found that the anti-ballot harvesting statute was passed with racial animus.

In their decision the 9th Circuit said there is a two part test to determine this. What the test is for our purposes here is less important than noting the circuits have split on what the test is so the SCOTUS pretty much has to address it at this point.

Suffice to say the current makeup of the court is not ideal for the Democratic Party's side. The current court is very much of the mind that the Constitution gives the states the power to administer their own elections and they have not, to date, shown much consideration for the continued relevancy of the Voting Rights Act. Bringing this case when it did and on the specific statutes it did means the Democratic Party has given the SCOTUS another chance to pare down the Voting Rights Act.

Then there's the fact that these aren't particular heinous statutes compared to other practices out there. The ballot harvesting in particular is a challenge that will be hard to sustain.

In any event, we're likely to get a new test on how to determine whether voting laws pass muster under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. My guess is that it will be pretty deferential to the states.
Click to expand...

Is there any type of "correlation is not causation" standard for judges?
 
Big case being argued right now. NCAA v. Alston. This is a case about whether student athlete compensation rules violate antitrust law. It's not going well for the NCAA. They're catching it from both sides. At this point a 9-0 decision wouldn't surprise me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top